What's new
By:
Filters

Grantland Article about Utah Trades and Approach to Free Agency

Core4 said:
Agree with you there. We got two picks that will likely be in the early 20's, plus a handful of seconds. On face value, about what could be expected. But flip this around and realize teams usually GIVE UP assets for expiring contracts. We received assets, and maintained our ability to be players in the trade market at the deadline. But don't underestimate the value of the 2nd rounders. In any deal, we have to give up an asset (this trade we gave up Murphy). Now we have GS' picks as trade throw-ins instead of our own. And that could be important next year and beyind. Early 2nd's are sometimes more valuable than late 1st's (nearly the same crop of players, but contracts aren't guaranteed). Let's just have fun and say we finish with the #5 pick and GS finishes at #22. Could you imagine a draft where we get the #5 pick and trade the 22nd and 35th for #18 or so. Then we turn around and trade our cap space and the rights to whoever we chose with GS' pick to one of the teams clearing space to go after Lebron or another 2014 FA - in exchange for future #1's and 1-yr deals, of course! We have one more summer we can do that, until we're up against the cap with new deals for Hayward and Favors and then Kanter and Burks.
Click to expand...

Don't Favors and Hayward new deals start counting next summer? Either in virtue of the deal we extend them to here soon, or the RFA contract someone offers them
 
Sneakers said:
Don't Favors and Hayward new deals start counting next summer? Either in virtue of the deal we extend them to here soon, or the RFA contract someone offers them
Click to expand...
Yes, but partially offset by Marvin's expiring. So we won't have $24M of cap space to trade. More likely in the neighborhood of $15M ($31M in expiring deals + difference of new deals for Hayward + Favors + salary slots for high draft pick + GS pick). Ballpark until we know what those new contracts will be. That's still enough room to facilitate another trade. But we'd need 1-yr deals in return so we'd then have money available for Kanter and Burks. After that, we'll be over the cap, but still under the luxury tax...and hopefully able to hang on to the original Core4 + Burke + next year's lottery pick (+ Gobert + the 2014 GS pick?). And if one or two have to be moved, then 2017 will be a year we'll again have multiple first's to look for replacements.
 
Core4 said:
Yes, but partially offset by Marvin's expiring. So we won't have $24M of cap space to trade. More likely in the neighborhood of $15M ($31M in expiring deals + difference of new deals for Hayward + Favors + salary slots for high draft pick + GS pick).
Click to expand...

How much do you think these two are gonna extend for? Maybe this "showing-of-faith cutting of vets to make this team theirs" will motivate them to sign to more flexible, reasonable deals in the interest of building something long term. Or maybe it will convince their agents to ransom us.
 
Sneakers said:
Lowe still has a point here though. There's a chance our cap space could have netted us more (if not substantially more) at the upcoming trade deadline. Or even further into this offseason. We essentially took on $$$$ for 2 first round picks, one of which, despite the wishful thinking among us, is destined to be in the 20s. I know it's not my money, but that's not the point, because it was about how we used it, not if. And I know I'm going to get murdered since 95% of Jazz fans have convinced themselves this was the best trade known to man. How much of it (cap space) do we have left?
Click to expand...

I agree with the article and your point. I still think we should have kept the valuable cap space until something better came along. However one thing core4 told me yesterday when I was complaining about the trade that made me feel better is we get all that cap space plus marvin williams cap space back next year. Its not like we lost the cap space forever.
 
The price for that improvement: two first-round draft picks and two second-rounders, with Utah spending a whopping $24 million to acquire those assets. Depending on how you value second-rounders, Utah spent something like $10 million apiece on two first-round picks, one of which — Golden State’s 2014 pick — will likely fall below no. 20. That is a high price, especially since Utah could have fielded a playoff contender by using its cap space to chase Jeff Teague (almost unwanted in Atlanta, sources say), re-signing Paul Millsap, and filling out the rest of the roster with bit players.
Click to expand...

So this guy thinks we should just waist our cap room on Millsap and Teague, for the next 2 or three years to just sneak in the playoffs and lose in the first round instead of building around our young core and having cap space to resign them.

What a douche!
 
Sneakers said:
How much do you think these two are gonna extend for? Maybe this "showing-of-faith cutting of vets to make this team theirs" will motivate them to sign to more flexible, reasonable deals in the interest of building something long term. Or maybe it will convince their agents to ransom us.
Click to expand...
IINM, Favors is currently making $6M and Hayward is making $3.5. Have no idea what they'll demand. For the sake of calculations, let's just take a stab and say $22M will be the combined salary for both. So that's about $12M more. Add in $4M or so for our first rounder. That's how I got from $31M in expirings down to my ballpark of $15M available.
 
oldtimer said:
I agree with the article and your point. I still think we should have kept the valuable cap space until something better came along. However one thing core4 told me yesterday when I was complaining about the trade that made me feel better is we get all that cap space plus marvin williams cap space back next year. Its not like we lost the cap space forever.
Click to expand...

Plus Rush, if he doesn't work out comes off the books as well at I think 4 million, so that's an extra 11 million off of what we had this off season.
 
I was including rush in that. We get back the 24 MILLION in salary dump we just took on plus we gain marvin's. Next year we will be able to sign hayward and favors to new deals get wiggins under contract :D and sign one good free agent. If rush pans out we could re-sign him as well. Its not the end of the world I thought it was yesterday.
 
I'm frustrated by this (people arguing against the trade), but let me explain why and hopefully someone (GVC) can correct me if I'm wrong.

We had to still get to the minimum salary, right? My understanding (limited) is this would have to happen by the start of the season, not just at some point during (trade deadline). So if my understanding is correct, we'd have had to sign dudes anyway. Well how many guys could we convince to take one year deals? I say one year because there's NO ONE left I want longer than that.

In the deal we get to the minimum, all are expiring, AND we get picks. Other option would be sign 3-4 randoms for one year deals (not likely) to get to the minimum, no?

Of course, I could be totally wrong and maybe we could carry well under the minimum into the season and HOPE we get a better deal at the deadline. At that point we'd HAVE to take on salary so we'd have less leverage.

Bird in the hand, boys. Bird in the hand.
 
No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. The minimum amount of $ gets paid out, no matter what, it's just that if you're under the minimum you have to pay the difference regardless. But we're above the minimum now, right? ...How far? Not convinced the trade was needed to do that
 
I think it was GVC who explained that the salary cap and the minimum and all that are figured on actual salary paid. This helped explain it to me.

For instance, the Jazz could not go through the season at 36 million in salaralies and then pick up two players for an additional 20 million and meet the minimum. Because in February through May (or June 30 if thier contract is worked that way) those two players will have only been paid about 7 or 8 million by the Jazz. The total salaries paid by the jazz would be about 44 million.
 
Lowe is great, he's just not thinking like our Front Office. We are finally rebuilding. We are not trying to get the 8th seed (even with Sap I don't think we could have got it). We are looking to land a couple of studs in the stacked draft. DL is a GREAT drafter, so these picks mean more to us than other teams. Consider San Antonio's success in picking late first round and second rounders!

Also, it's unfair to state that Utah spent $28 million on the picks. The reality is that those funds had to be spent, one way or another. Instead of spending it on free-agents who had Utah very low on their preferred destination list, we get to try and get someone better next year to complement our young core.
 
Sneakers said:
No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. The minimum amount of $ gets paid out, no matter what, it's just that if you're under the minimum you have to pay the difference regardless. But we're above the minimum now, right? ...How far? Not convinced the trade was needed to do that
Click to expand...

We are on two diff pages.
 
Sneakers said:
No I'm pretty sure that's wrong. The minimum amount of $ gets paid out, no matter what, it's just that if you're under the minimum you have to pay the difference regardless. But we're above the minimum now, right? ...How far? Not convinced the trade was needed to do that
Click to expand...
While that's true, if you're under the minimum you forgo any cut of revenue sharing. That's money that helps cover these salaries to offset actual cash paid out of pocket by Miller. Over the minimum and under the luxury tax is exactly the range that a small market team should be aiming for.

They could have waited until the deadline, but then everyone knows that the Jazz need to trade up to the minimum if they want the extra revenue. Thus, they give up leverage and possibly end up on the bad side of a deal. There might be a team that needs a luxury tax bailout; but it seems like a lot of teams are getting their books in order to avoid huge tax payouts, so maybe not. Golden State needed to shed cap space and the Jazz got a ton back for pretty much nothing.
 
Everyone. Calm the **** down. Kevin O'Connor can easily flip his two picks next year for a player like James Harden just as Houston did. There are so many opportunities like this everywhere; you are not allowed to question O'Connor wasting $24,000,000 in valuable cap space for a #25 pick. Why, everone knows how many All Stars have come in the 25-30 range of the first round.

All Hail Kevin.
 
Core4 said:
Agree with you there. We got two picks that will likely be in the early 20's, plus a handful of seconds. On face value, about what could be expected. But flip this around and realize teams usually GIVE UP assets for expiring contracts. We received assets, and maintained our ability to be players in the trade market at the deadline.
Click to expand...

This is a good point.
 
Here's a question for everyone. What is an All Star worth in this league? What is a superstar worth in this league?

Money was spent. Roster spots filled by garbage players that expire at the end of the season. I seriously doubt that the addition of Jefferson, Biedrins and Rush make the Jazz better at all.

If things go the right way the Jazz could be adding a top 10 pick (possibly top 5) and that could net the Jazz an All Star. They could also add a top 20 pick that could be a very valuable rotational player.

What if GS gets hit with injuries to Curry and Bogut? There is a slim chance the Jazz could be adding another lottery pick.
 
The point of my post above is that LBJ is making close to 20 million next season. I'd he worth more than that?

I would say that he is easily worth close to 40 million.

The Jazz have a chance to draft a franchise changing/superstar type player. If they do what us that worth? I'd say that's easily worth 23 million, and that doesn't even include the other picks as well as the development of the young guys.

23 million is money well spent.
 
The article definitely had a different take on the trades that hasn't been discussed. It is interesting argument that Utah paid about $6m per pick or about $8m and $4m if you divide the value of the first and second rounders. It does seem like a lot when the average first round pick sells for $3-4m. The Jazz of course got three players who may in fact contribute positively on the court, this season and doubtfully but maybe beyond. I am definitely in favor of the trade, and thought that getting 4 picks and cash was good value, but this article definitely makes me wonder if they should have gotten another one or two picks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top